From: jamie@jamieiles.com (Jamie Iles)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:13:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111017121350.GF4992@totoro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1318852378-14180-3-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org>
Hi Lee,
I'll have a proper look and test at this later, but it looks pretty good
to me, so just a couple of minor nits.
Jamie
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/base/soc.c b/drivers/base/soc.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1578e4e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/base/soc.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) ST-Ericsson SA 2011
> + *
> + * Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> for ST-Ericsson.
> + * License terms: GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/sysfs.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/stat.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/sys_soc.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +
> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf);
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(machine, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get, NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(family, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get, NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(soc_id, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get, NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(revision, S_IRUGO, soc_info_get, NULL);
> +
> +static ssize_t soc_info_get(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct soc_device *soc_dev =
> + container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev);
> +
> + if (attr == &dev_attr_machine)
> + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->machine);
> + if (attr == &dev_attr_family)
> + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->family);
> + if (attr == &dev_attr_revision)
> + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->revision);
> + if (attr == &dev_attr_soc_id)
> + return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", soc_dev->attr->soc_id);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> +}
> +
> +struct bus_type soc_bus_type = {
> + .name = "soc",
> +};
static?
> +
> +static int __init soc_bus_register(void)
> +{
> + return bus_register(&soc_bus_type);
> +}
> +core_initcall(soc_bus_register);
> +
> +struct attribute *soc_attr[] = {
> + &dev_attr_machine.attr,
> + &dev_attr_family.attr,
> + &dev_attr_soc_id.attr,
> + &dev_attr_revision.attr,
> + NULL,
> +};
static?
> +
> +struct attribute_group soc_attr_group = {
> + .attrs = soc_attr,
> +};
static const?
> +
> +struct device *soc_device_register(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
> +{
> + struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> + static atomic_t soc_device_num = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> + int ret;
> +
> + soc_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*soc_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!soc_dev)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + soc_dev->attr = soc_dev_attr;
> + soc_dev->dev.bus = &soc_bus_type;
> +
> + dev_set_name(&soc_dev->dev, "soc%d",
> + atomic_inc_return(&soc_device_num) - 1);
> +
> + ret = device_register(&soc_dev->dev);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out1;
> +
> + ret = sysfs_create_group(&soc_dev->dev.kobj, &soc_attr_group);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out2;
If you create an array of struct attribute_group's and set
soc_dev->dev.groups to that then the driver core will handle creating
the attributes for you and removing them at cleanup. It also means the
attributes will get created at device creation time so there isn't a
potential race with udev events looking for attributes that haven't been
created yet.
> +
> + return &soc_dev->dev;
> +
> +out2:
> + device_unregister(&soc_dev->dev);
> +out1:
> + kfree(soc_dev);
> + kfree(soc_dev->attr);
> + return ERR_PTR(ret);
> +}
> +
> +void soc_device_unregister(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct soc_device *soc_dev =
> + container_of(dev, struct soc_device, dev);
> +
> + sysfs_remove_group(&dev->kobj, &soc_attr_group);
> +
> + if (device_is_registered(dev))
> + device_unregister(dev);
I don't think you need this - I think it's fine to say that a
precondition of calling this is that the device is registered (that's
what the platform_device layer does).
> +
> + bus_unregister(&soc_bus_type);
I don't think this is quite right - we're freeing the bus on the first
unregister and we won't be able to register any more soc devices. As
this can't sensibly be a loadable module I think it's fine to leave it
always registered.
> +
> + kfree(soc_dev->attr);
> + kfree(soc_dev);
device_unregister() should do this for you. The device could still be
hanging around after device_unregister() if there are active references
to it so we don't want to free the memory too early. We should have a
release function in the struct device set in soc_device_register that
frees the struct soc_device.
> +}
> diff --git a/include/linux/sys_soc.h b/include/linux/sys_soc.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..2485a0f2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/sys_soc.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) ST-Ericsson SA 2011
> + * Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> for ST-Ericsson.
> + * License terms: GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2
> + */
> +#ifndef __SOC_BUS_H
> +#define __SOC_BUS_H
> +
> +#include <linux/kobject.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
I'm not sure you need kobject.h and platform_device.h here.
> +
> +struct soc_device_attribute {
> + const char *machine;
> + const char *family;
> + const char *revision;
> + const char *soc_id;
> +};
> +
> +struct soc_device {
> + struct device dev;
> + struct soc_device_attribute *attr;
> +};
This can be private to the implementation file.
> +
> +/**
> + * soc_device_register - register SoC as a device
> + * @soc_plat_dev_attr: Attributes passed from platform to be attributed to a SoC
> + */
> +struct device *soc_device_register(
> + struct soc_device_attribute *soc_plat_dev_attr);
> +
> +/**
> + * soc_device_unregister - unregister SoC device
> + * @dev: SoC device to be unregistered
> + */
> +void soc_device_unregister(struct device *dev);
> +
> +#endif /* __SOC_BUS_H */
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-17 12:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-17 11:52 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 1/6] mach-ux500: pass parent pointer to each platform device Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2011-10-17 12:13 ` Jamie Iles [this message]
2011-10-17 16:16 ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 18:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-17 18:25 ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:44 ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 11:12 ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 14:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:41 ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:43 ` Greg KH
2011-10-17 16:18 ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 11:14 ` Lee Jones
2011-10-18 14:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:15 ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-18 14:38 ` Greg KH
2011-10-18 14:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-10-18 14:56 ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] Documentation: add information for new sysfs soc bus functionality Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 4/6] mach-ux500: export System-on-Chip information ux500 via sysfs Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 5/6] mach-ux500: move top level platform devices in sysfs to /sys/devices/socX Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:52 ` [PATCH 6/6] mach-ux500: remove intermediary add_platform_device* functions Lee Jones
2011-10-17 11:59 ` Jamie Iles
2011-10-19 14:43 ` Lee Jones
2011-10-19 14:45 ` Jamie Iles
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-20 16:10 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-01-20 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-01-20 16:36 ` Greg KH
[not found] ` <CANmRt2gZe7dfRe5T8fS-1LGkeQXOBzcrbzL8xU+J9M7X4ZuDrA@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-20 18:20 ` Greg KH
2012-01-20 16:39 ` Greg KH
[not found] ` <CANmRt2j4woAAg3dEtyQG4rjxRQ5Sx+4OW84Mathk4_YrFTjChQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-20 18:10 ` Greg KH
2012-01-21 17:08 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-01-21 17:08 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-01-28 1:05 ` Greg KH
2012-01-30 17:58 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-30 18:34 ` Greg KH
2012-02-01 9:23 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-02-01 9:23 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
2012-02-01 15:52 ` Jamie Iles
2012-02-01 16:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-02-06 19:22 [PATCH 0/6] ux500: Export SoC information and some platform clean-up Lee Jones
2012-02-06 19:22 ` [PATCH 2/6] drivers/base: add bus for System-on-Chip devices Lee Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111017121350.GF4992@totoro \
--to=jamie@jamieiles.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).